After yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Boys Scouts of America vs. Dale, the GBCS had to demonstrate their mis-placement once again.  Read their silly brief statement here.

The GBCS keeps quoting the UMC Social Principles, but yet they can't seem to quote them accurately or completely.  Allow me to repeat my writing of last October again, in which I responded to the GBCS letter of last Fall (which looked pretty much like yesterday's GBCS statement):
__________

To:  Boy Scouts of America, Three Fires Council
Date: Oct 1999
From: "Michael L. Gonzalez" <GonzoML@concentric.net>

I take an active role in the boy scout troop at our UMC including being the Church representative to the troop, as well as the troop treasurer.  I have one son in the troop and two more sons who will come of age for the troop soon.

I have not found any written documents from the BSA backing up what I have said below to be the position of the BSA, but I assume (and hope) that the BSA position is indeed as I have stated.
____________________

A suggested reply from the BSA to the GBCS:

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) certainly desires to treat all of God's creatures as equals, and unwarranted discrimination is totally against BSA principles.  The BSA has always thought that the moral values of the BSA and the United Methodist Church (UMC) were generally congruent with each other. However, the UMC General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) recent letter to the BSA states that the BSA is unjustifiably discriminating against "gays."  In order to understand the position of the GBCS, the BSA would like the GBCS to be more explicit, and also to clarify some of the discrepancies as explained below.  The BSA does not want to exclude out-of-hand any valid reasons to shift policy if, in fact, it will further the goals and objectives of the BSA as well as of humanity in general.

The UMC Social Principles Paragraph 65C (Marriage) states "We affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman."  This statement is not in conflict with the standards of the BSA.  The BSA encourages both adult men and women to be leaders of our troops.  If any male or female leader of a troop were to acknowledge openly that he or she breaches the standard of fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman, and expressly attempted to teach the scouts against the sanctity of marriage, the BSA would consider excluding this person from troop leadership.

As does the UMC, the BSA also affirms that marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman.  Therefore, if a candidate for troop leadership were to acknowledge openly that he or she engages in unmarried sex with a person of the opposite sex or engages in sex with a person of the same sex, and if this person espouses to troop leaders and/or scouts that this behavior is proper and acceptable, then the BSA would consider excluding this person from troop leadership.

Turning now from the BSA position concerning the adult leaders: The GBCS letter did not make clear if the accusation of discrimination means that the GBCS is encouraging the BSA to accept "gay youth" as scouts.

The UMC Social Principles Paragraph 66C (Rights of Children) states "All children have the right to quality education, including full sex education appropriate to their stage of development that utilizes the best educational techniques and insights. Christian parents and guardians and the Church have the responsibility to ensure that children receive sex education consistent with Christian morality, including faithfulness in marriage and abstinence in singleness."

Again, the UMC and BSA are in agreement in upholding abstinence for the youth. One significant reason why scouting has always been separated by gender is to uphold this moral value of abstinence.  The BSA firmly holds that it would be inappropriate to place youth in a situation of sexual temptation by camping with the other gender (or is it now "genders;" see below).

The BSA requests the GBCS to provide information on the "correct" interpretation of the word gender and the definition of male and female.  If "gays" are born that way, then is there more than two of what we used to call gender?  Does the following excerpt from the UMC Social Principles mean that indeed there is not simply male and female?  Paragraph 65F (Women and Men) states "We understand our gender diversity to be a gift from God, intended to add to the rich variety of human experience and perspective;" The BSA is aware of statements made publicly by gay activists that gender is a spectrum on which one end is male and on the other end is female, and that every human being falls somewhere within this spectrum, and thus no one is 100% male or 100% female.

The BSA intends to hold firm on separating the youth by gender.  However, in order to know how to classify the genders, the BSA would appreciate some direction from the GBCS.  For example isn't it true that the UMC Book of Discipline defines separate social and/or service groups within the Church separated by gender?  Such as UM Women and UM Men.  Does the UMC define these separations as discrimination?  Will the UMC encourage new groups across the spectrum of gender such as UM Gays, UM Lesbians, UM Transgendered, UM Bisexuals, etc.?

The BSA is an organization that is dedicated to equality and justice, and also to allegiance to God and upholding moral values.  However, the BSA does not understand fully what the GBCS is encouraging the BSA to change due to the vagueness of the recent GBCS letter.

===========

Click to read the comments by several other UMC members.